Undeserved speeding ticket (truly, lol); going to court, but…

[fishnguy]

But afraid I am going to lose… here is briefly what happened:

To state this right away, this is not a cop (or rent-a-cop) bashing thread. Please try to refrain.

In the evening, we had to run to my in-laws’ place to water the plants, check on the apartment and whatnot, and then do some groceries shopping. Their apartment is located by the hospital. So, we packed the kids and drove. This is all happening in Peace River, for those familiar with the layout. For those who isn’t, there is a new bridge construction that has been going for a couple of years now (or more?). With the new bridge complete, they started renovating the old one and it is closed, so the traffic is going both ways on the new one. Obviously, there are speed limits in place during this whole period, and changing traffic patterns and whatnot. I am well aware of all of these, including the speed limits and where they are implemented. It was a very snowy evening, so extra caution and so on when travelling with the kids.

Anyway, the speed limit on the bridge is 50 km/h and changes to 80 km/h when divided highway begins. Here is a small illustration (the arrow is my direction of travel, the red point is where the speed limit changes, the green line is the temporary diversion of traffic going the opposite direction relative to me):

https://i.postimg.cc/tXGKF7Y9/33-EEB9-F4-429-F-4-E5-E-AD94-40-BD088-B96-B7.jpg

Edit: I see I drew the green line going off the ramp. It actually should be following the highway (the ramp too, perhaps, but the main traffic is coming down the highway towards the bridge).

So… keep in mind that I am aware of rcmp and peace officers constantly patrolling the bridge and often just park at the other end with the radar, road conditions, and kids in the car, and so on. I am aware of all of that. Very aware of them catching a number of people speeding there daily because I see it all the time. One has to be dumb or not from the area in order to speed there. I am neither. The road looked like this after the plow went through later, after what happened:

https://i.postimg.cc/T1Qny1w8/0-FA4-D653-C859-480-C-BCC0-A7447-F179901.jpg

So we were driving on the bridge, going around 50 km/h. In my head I was thinking “That is quite a bit if snow and the plow hasn’t been through yet” and “I wonder how fast would people drive if the speed limit was the usual pre-construction 80”. No other vehicles on the bridge; the first one I saw in my side mirror entering the bridge when I was already on the other side. There were also 3 vehicles entering the undivided part of the highway, ie where that diverted traffic takes place from the opposite direction. Whatever, nothing special. I just wrote all my notes for the court earlier, so I have all the details, lol. So as I got to the red dot on the map, I started to slowly accelerate, being fully aware that I am in the good with the law now, no bridge to drive off, etc. Minding my business, I kept driving, till I saw the yellow flashing lights at the end of the hill indicating red light ahead, so I dropped the gas (I was going probably just under 80, which is the speed limit). By the time I got anywhere near the intersection the light changed back to green and I continued speeding back up to around 80. The next intersection was ours to turn left, which is also the turn to the hospital. In left turning lane there was a Ram 1500 in front of me that took a turn with two cars coming in the opposite direction not far enough, imo, given the road conditions, which I thought about at the moment. I waited for the cars to pass. The first one went by, the other was kind of slow, but I waited. As the second car passed by, I saw emergency lights and heard the siren. I looked in my right side mirror and saw an emergency vehicle with the lights on behind me and kind of the right. I was only about a quarter into the intersection, so I decided to remain where I was, so that the, what I thought was the ambulance, could drive in front if me and make the turn to get to the hospital. The reason is simple, with the road conditions as they were, it could simply take a while for me to get moving and get out of the way, so I think I made the right call. Then the emergency vehicle honked at me. Ok, so I started moving and completed the left turn and pulled over to the side immediately. The vehicle was still behind me and the siren kept going. Ok, there is a concrete island in the middle separating the traffic, so maybe the ambulance driver felt like there wasn’t enough space because of the snow or whatever reason, so I moved beyond the island (still on the very side of the road) and moved in deeper, thinking I was going off the road now. The siren stopped and at that moment I realized I was being pulled over. I know may sound kind of weird (may it though? I have been playing in my head over and over and it just is like, no weirdness about it), but I was convinced it was an ambulance going to the hospital. This is where it was taking place, about 2.5-3 km from the bridge (the red dot is where we were, the other dot with the cross/plus is the hospital):

https://i.postimg.cc/1P1P9MpY/9-E68390-C-D6-CD-4420-AB76-A26-AA0-C83784.jpg

So came a guy, introduced himself as Peace Officer X and asked me if I know what the speed limit is on the bridge. I was a little puzzled by what was going on but said 50. He said he clicked me on the bridge at 79, lol. I was simply shocked and said “There is no way I was going 79” and asked to see the radar reading. He said the radar is in his vehicle and he cannot show it to me. Ok, I have an idea, but don’t really know how that works. I said again, I was not going 79 on the bridge, the wife said the same, I told him there is no way, I have kids at the back, no way. He asked why then I didn’t pull over when I saw the lights flashing behind. Not sure what to say to that. I told him I really thought he was an ambulance going to the hospital and in the circumstances I thought it would be better for me to remain where I was, which I did, etc. explained my reasoning and whatnot, though he asked me why I didn’t pull over when I saw the lights (I still do not understand what he meant). He asked “Blue lights is an ambulance?” And that I don’t know whatever. Yes, I know, but usually I see the lights or hear the siren and look where they are coming from and try to get away as quickly as possible if I am on the way or just pull over to the right if I am not and it is safe to do so. I didn’t tell him any of that (I felt that he may take it as an escalation or something) and simply said that there was no way I was going 70 and asked to see for the radar reading again. He said it is in his truck and he “just clicks and it shows him”. He then asked me if I know what to do when I see an emergency vehicle and I outlined him the procedure, but noted what I did thinking he was an ambulance going to the hospital was probably the right the thing to do in the circumstances. I finished by saying “No way I was doing 79, man.” He took my papers and left to his truck. I explained to my daughter what was happening (the other one fell asleep back on the bridge; she is in the transition from naps to no naps, so she falls asleep pretty much every time we are driving anywhere).

Some time went by, my daughter asked why it was taking so long and I explained that it takes time to check the registration, write the ticket, etc. I then saw another Peace Officer vehicle parked on the other side of the road just ahead (probably got there when I was talking to my daughter because it wasn’t there before) and told my wife laughing that he probably called for back up. Whatever. Some more time went by and the wife asked me why it was taking so long, lol. I told her he was probably looking to write me as many tickets as he could that he thought would stick because I wasn’t “compliant”. More time went by and I saw Officer X finally coming out of his vehicle. Instead of going to me, he went to the front and looked over my vehicle. Ok, now I really was convinced he was looking to write me up with everything he thought he could. There was nothing, but I was wondering what he would bring in the paperwork.

As he was leaving back to his vehicle, he waived his arm kind of when you show someone to come over. A few moments later the other “cop” vehicle in front started driving and I saw it going in the side mirror, so I thought it left (thought that the “come over” motion was actually “you can leave” or something). A while later, I saw in the mirror another Peace Officer standing next to X’s truck by his window and talking to him. I don’t know when the other guy left or where he went, I wasn’t watching, but, at last, long time after the Officer X came back to me, gave me the speeding ticket, going 79 in a 50 zone, and a warning for not pulling over for the emergency vehicle! WTF?! I asked him where he clicked me from and his reply was “You can hear about it in court and that court date is on March something”, wished me a good night and left. My guess is he was one of the 3 vehicles coming down to the bridge I saw and described above.

The guy was polite, nothing against that, but wtf! Not saying I am an exemplary driver and did have my fair share of speeding tickets (no other ticket ever, aside from one or two for parking). All have been paid on time and no complaints. No complaints about any because they were well deserved but one. I mentioned in another thread about that one recently. A couple of decades ago I was pulled over for going 71 in a 50 zone while being in the transition zone (from 70 to 50). I went to court, told the judge what happened and that I saw the cop standing on the road showing me to pull over with the 50 sign still way ahead of me (wish I had a dash cam; I still don’t). The cop testified that his radar was calibrated to the distance, he worked with all kinds of radars for decades, trained others, he was an exemplary officer, etc. I thought he had a superman/supercop shirt under the uniform from his description of himself. The judge told me that my eyes played trick on me because the cop could not have been wrong from what he heard. Of course, my testimony was what a young guy could say and it took me probably about a minute or less. The cop took about 5, describing even what the weather was on the day (it was summer). The fact that my mom was with me and could confirm my story completely didn’t matter (for obvious reasons). That one I am still (very) salty about. And that is why I feel that my chnaces are pretty slim this time around.


The purpose of the thread is to get an advice from those who were in similar situations and what was helpful in court, what was counter productive, etc. just advice in general. I am going to court regardless because this is a complete bullpoop. I was not going 79 in the 50 zone! The warning for not pulling over for the emergency vehicle is ludicrous!

And again, this is not a bashing police or frontline workers thread. Just looking for an advice because… Well, because an injustice and a complete bs took place. You can bash me, the what happened and how I was wrong and whatever, can’t say I care. But any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks for the advice.

[58thecat]

Well if you do go have everything written down precisely, watch your body language and how you conduct yourself.

[tirebob]

You will want to request disclosure so you have the police officers report and notes. Make sure you write down everything as it happened from your view now so you do not forget (although referring back to your above post is probably good).

I have only challenged two tickets in court in my day because both of them were bogus and I was successful both times. You just have to make sure you have all the details and that you can make a legitimate argument. Just saying you were not speeding is not going to win it for you. You need to show and justify your case.

[Smoky buck]

Next time show a little nipple and you will get off with a warning lol

[JB_AOL]

It's worth fighting, but careful how you word things. Technically you can't change speed til you pass the speed limit sign (I know noone does this), and unless you have a dash cam, it'll be very hard to prove this.

[MyAlberta]

The approach of ‘I don’t know how fast I was going, but it wasn’t that fast’, typically is insufficient in the eyes of the judge. I did win my only challenge by using that same argument based on ‘ I drive a standard and by gear selection and engine speed, know my road speed’. Can you establish a time stamp? Does it correlate. Judges evaluate you on demeanour, preparedness, and facts presented. A good story lacking applicable facts that prove your case, often makes for a cranky court. If you know you were in the right, expose whatever it was that made you know. Otherwise, it’s a plea for leniency.

[barbless]

The Judge don't care who is in the vehicle. If going to court, have your facts straight, be concise and to the point. Do not elaborate or say more than asked for. Try not to say "I THINK" !!!! (It must have been) Always get the Prosecutor to rephrase a question at least 2 times when asked. "I do not understand" "Can you please rephrase so I can understand what you are asking?"
Guess this might only work in a Kangaroo court.

[tri777]

".. I saw emergency lights and heard the siren. I looked in my right side mirror and saw an emergency
vehicle with the lights on behind me and kind of the right. I was only about a quarter into the intersection,
so I decided to remain where I was, so that the, what I thought was the ambulance.."
Did you see blue lights in the midst of the red flashing behind you? The very first thing I always look for
is the coloration of blue mixed within the red lights, ambulances will not have blue in the light bars/bulbs.

[scesfiremedic]

Good reason to have a Dashcam that records your speed!

[Ken07AOVette]

Go buy a dashcam.

Sorry to say, but without proof you are at the mercy of the Court. Hopefully the Peace Officer has had prior tickets dismissed.

Don't wait, don't forget, do it now. If there is not one local, get one on amazon prime and have it in a couple days. IT HAS TO HAVE GPS or it is pointless for these situations. Also get 1 with rear facing camera. Install it immediately. Set the time and date.

If you had a dashcam, you could have shown him your recorded speed. You could have backed it up to laptop showing date location and most importantly speed at time of incident for court. It is an immediate withdrawl of the ticket, IF you have proof.



You can bet this guy will be watching for your truck, especially if you fight it.

Be prepared.

Also as noted above by someone else- never say 'I don't know or I think'- you say "I am aware of the speed zone, travel it often. I was travelling exactly 50kph, it was a cloudless night, traffic was minimal, I do remember seeing a vehicle in front or behind me, possibly that is where the error occurred in part by the Peace Officer, he caught someone else on radar and stopped me.... whatever the circumstances are you can not waffle in Court. Be firm in your convictions. Nobody else in the vehicle is relevant, they do not matter.

Also say you saw flashing lights in the distance behind you, but you were acutely aware of road conditions and more concerned with getting/ staying out of the way of what you had perceived to be an ambulance, or snowplow, because snowplows also run blue lights in which case it would not be an emergency vehicle, but road maintenance.

[elkhunter11]

Tbe bottom line is that you have to prove that you were not speeding, whereas the officer does not have to prove that you were speeding. So you need to figure out how you can do that, or at least give the judge something to make him believe that you weren't speeding. Saying I could not have been going that fast isn't likely to work.

[Phil McCracken]

Tbe bottom line is that you have to prove that you were not speeding, whereas the officer does not have to prove that you were speeding. So you need to figure out how you can do that, or at least give the judge something to make him believe that you weren't speeding. Saying I could not have been going that fast isn't likely to work.

Elk11 buddy...we finally agree on something!...:)

Seriously...the "onus" is on you. Hope you kept good notes to relay to the Courts. This will convey the Judge/JP any reasonable doubts in regards to your adventure...

BTW...very familiar with the Peace River ongoing bridge construction...

Used to live there and go back every year hunting. A sh*t show, along with the East hill caving into the Heart River....:)

[fishnguy]

Thanks for the responses.

That’s the thing, I know I was within the speed limit because I look at the speedometer as I do in my mirrors, regardless of how slow or fast I am driving.

I started speeding up after the divided traffic begins, which is maybe 10, say even 20 meters before the 80 sign, so it would be physically impossible for the vehicle to pick up speed that much that fast, even in perfect road conditions. In fact, I was still under 80 when I saw the yellow flashing lights ahead, which is hundreds of meters, maybe even a kilometre up the hill.

I have no idea how to prove any of it though. He will just say that he “clicks and it shows him” with a bunch of notes. That’s the thing…

Yes, dash cam would be great, but too little too late for this particular case. So I am back to where I started with this. I don’t know how to prove and my word doesn’t mean much against his “click and it shows”, as I once learned and mentioned it in my previous post.

The emergency vehicle is a complete bogus thing that I still have no idea what the heck he was talking about. Like I mentioned previously, there were vehicles around me, acting all normal, so that must mean there was no siren or lights until there were when I saw and heard them. Right after I saw the lights and heard the siren, I saw a vehicle on my right pulling the side of the road, which was just a moment before determined to cross the intersection as if nothing was going on. The whole thing is dumb: I am standing in the left turn lane ready to complete the maneuver, about 4-5 vehicles around me are driving as if nothing is going on (because nothing was going on), the guy hits the lights and turns on the siren, I try to let him go assuming he is in the rush to get to the hospital (maybe the patient turned for the worse or whatever reason), the guy then asks why I didn’t pull over when I saw the lights. Is it not dumb and I am missing something? Why would I be looking at the colour of the lights trying to figure out who it is (beside being an emergency vehicle) or even thinking about it at all when it happens right behind and when I do not expect to be pulled over, like at all? Like I said, it took me a while to realize what was going on. The first thought was to let the guy get ahead to wherever he was going and get there as fast as humanely possible.

You will want to request disclosure so you have the police officers report and notes. Make sure you write down everything as it happened from your view now so you do not forget (although referring back to your above post is probably good).

I have only challenged two tickets in court in my day because both of them were bogus and I was successful both times. You just have to make sure you have all the details and that you can make a legitimate argument. Just saying you were not speeding is not going to win it for you. You need to show and justify your case.
Thanks for the reply, Bob. I didn’t know I could do that. Any advice on how I can request disclosure or where to educate myself on the subject? Thanks. My notes are pretty concise, plus this thread. I started writing yesterday when we got my in-laws place, everything I remembered, including my thoughts at certain points of the route, like when getting on the bridge, which was quite snowed in, colour of vehicles I saw and noticed, even the colour of the headlamps, etc. of course I will edit it for when I go to court, but have that draft handy as well.

Again, thanks to everyone for your contributions. I drove the same way three times today, once on purpose to see how I could speed up, etc. I will post some more thoughts I got about the whole situation later, after getting them together. It doesn’t make sense to me, the whole thing that happened. In fact, I don’t even see how the Peace Officer could be certain it was me he got clocked because he must have seen whoever he supposedly clocked for only a split moment driving in the opposite direction and he caught up to me more than two minutes later. He hasn’t seen me (if he claims it was me he clocked) for more than two minutes before pulling me over. And then this whole emergency lights nonsense. I feel like I am getting to much confidence in my thoughts and will be very disappointed in March, lol.

[fishnguy]

New “information”, potentially. Was discussing it with my wife just now and it looks like she may have clued in more than I did yesterday, lol.

Conversation went something like this (paraphrasing):
Me: How can he know it was me he clocked more than two minutes later when he pulled me over? And the whole siren thing, me not pulling over?
The wife: He probably got the wrong guy because whoever he got didn’t pull over.
Me: What? The lights went on, blah blah, I eventually “pulled over” for good after two attempts of letting him go without realizing he was a cop going after me.
The wife: Well, I understood when he asked why you didn’t pull over then, he was talking about the bridge, he tried to pull someone over at the bridge.
Me: … (quietly, looking dumb, lol)

There was no way I was the one he “clicked and it showed”. It seems my best play here is to show that was actually the case. There is no way he can be more certain that it was me he got than me being certain I was going with the speed limit all the way since leaving home and getting to my destination, before and after the incident. Am I on the right track here? Thoughts? For all I (or anyone, really) know the vehicle he actually got turned to the plaza before, there are stores, gas stations, neighbourhoods, other businesses, etc to go to on both sides at the intersection prior and after; could also be well ahead because it went straight while I was waiting for my turn to go left. Probably other possibilities. That is why my confusion (still) about the emergency lights, aside from the speeding and 79 in the 50 zone to boot!

If someone with life experience of doing the job can chime in on the situation (I understand unlikely, but…), I would greatly appreciate it. The whole thing doesn’t make any sense to me.

[Rdamours]

I ran into the same thing years ago. The guy was a lying idiot and not much I could do without taking time off. I went in before the ticket and told the jp just that. I negotiated a lower ticket and demerits. I heard later he was suspended for other garbage. He picked a position with no education requirements and milked it. Just another big dumb moron in a position of power with no morals. Not one to wish anything bad on anyone but…

[Ishpah]

The concept of the P/O not getting the right vehicle stands out in my mind.
Not sure if he was an approaching vehicle or a stationary one that would be on your side of the highway.
If he is in motion in the opposite direction to yours, then he would have had to turn around to pursue. Giving ample time for the subject speeder to disappear.
He made the assumption that you were his subject since you were held up waiting to make your safe left turn.
And if you are in the left turning lane, it would be an unsafe move to cross over the through lane to get to the right side of the road assuming that he too was in the left lane turn lane.
I think that the attendance of additional officers was a collaboration of the three to write the ticket because he realized he had little grounds.
Mistaken for the speeder.
Adds the warning as a buffer.
I believe that they must show you the radar with the reading. That's withholding evidence.

[elkhunter11]

New “information”, potentially. Was discussing it with my wife just now and it looks like she may have clued in more than I did yesterday, lol.

Conversation went something like this (paraphrasing):
Me: How can he know it was me he clocked more than two minutes later when he pulled me over? And the whole siren thing, me not pulling over?
The wife: He probably got the wrong guy because whoever he got didn’t pull over.
Me: What? The lights went on, blah blah, I eventually “pulled over” for good after two attempts of letting him go without realizing he was a cop going after me.
The wife: Well, I understood when he asked why you didn’t pull over then, he was talking about the bridge, he tried to pull someone over at the bridge.
Me: … (quietly, looking dumb, lol)

There was no way I was the one he “clicked and it showed”. It seems my best play here is to show that was actually the case. There is no way he can be more certain that it was me he got than me being certain I was going with the speed limit all the way since leaving home and getting to my destination, before and after the incident. Am I on the right track here? Thoughts? For all I (or anyone, really) know the vehicle he actually got turned to the plaza before, there are stores, gas stations, neighbourhoods, other businesses, etc to go to on both sides at the intersection prior and after; could also be well ahead because it went straight while I was waiting for my turn to go left. Probably other possibilities. That is why my confusion (still) about the emergency lights, aside from the speeding and 79 in the 50 zone to boot!

If someone with life experience of doing the job can chime in on the situation (I understand unlikely, but…), I would greatly appreciate it. The whole thing doesn’t make any sense to me.

Quite possibly, and this shows how the system is flawed, the officer requires zero proof, just his word that the person that stopped was the one speeding. And once the new system is in place, you don't even get a trial to prove your innocence.

[58thecat]

Now it’s up to the OP to present his case accordingly, I think he has had some good advice, balls in your court:)

[daveyn]

I have taken 3 different tickets to court and been successful on all 3. None of them were speeding however.
I would go with the Wrong Vehicle defense. If the officer did not have constant eye contact wth your vehicle how can he be sure he pulled over the correct vehicle. It's dark, there's snow,your vehicle is probably dirty so the color is indistinct. Unless he had eye contact with your vehicle the entire time from the click until he pulled you over he can't say for sure he got the correct vehicle.
The lack of traffic at that time might be a factor in his favor but he needs to be able to confirm without a doubt he pulled over the correct vehicle.

[Ken07AOVette]

So which dashcam did you order? :)

[elkhunter11]

So which dashcam did you order? :)

And how will ordering a dashcam help him to contest this ticket? And even with a dashcam, the officer is under no obligation to watch your video, he can simply issue the ticket, and with the new system coming into effect, you have to pay to even contest a ticket.

[Sundancefisher]

Now it’s up to the OP to present his case accordingly, I think he has had some good advice, balls in your court:)

I wonder if the RCMP officer has yet been made aware of this thread lol.

[Ken07AOVette]

And how will ordering a dashcam help him to contest this ticket? And even with a dashcam, the officer is under no obligation to watch your video, he can simply issue the ticket, and with the new system coming into effect, you have to pay to even contest a ticket.

The world is ending.

Whatever you do don't buy one.

Keep living for yesterday, tomorrow means nothing.

[Sundancefisher]

Go buy a dashcam.

What would you recommend for a dash cam that doesn’t need to be hard wired?

[Ken07AOVette]

What would you recommend for a dash cam that doesn’t need to be hard wired?

this is a solid camera, decent deal.

https://www.bestbuy.ca/en-ca/product/thinkware-x1000-dual-channel-dash-cam-2k-qhd-2560-x-1440-front-and-rear-cam-156-wide-angle-dashboard-camera-recorder-with-g-sensor-sony-sensor-parking-mode-3-5-lcd-touchscreen-night-vision/15535479

There are lots, it depends on the features you want. Whatever you do make sure it has GPS and front rear cameras, less important are parking lot incident recording, built in screen. It is super easy wiring in Sun.

I use Thinkware and Blackvue, both came with the cig lighter adapter and hardwire. I hardwire everything in, to leave the power port available for phone charging, or sirius portable but it is strictly up to you.

If you do not unplug or turn it off when parked, or set the low voltage automatic shutoff it can drain your battery in a couple days. I wired the last ones to the overhead interior lights, so it is on when the vehicle is running, or a door is opened. The unfortunate part about doing it this way, if the dashcam does not have an internal battery is that you are no longer protected against parking lot incident recording. It is a 6 of 1 half dozen of the other in my opinion.

There are any of a hundred off brand ones for $59.99 but you get what you pay for. None of the cheap ones have GPS and as said many times, for scenarios like this GPS is essential. It shows your speed location and time.

[sns2]

Next time show a little nipple and you will get off with a warning lol

This ^^^

[fishnguy]

^ Took the advice and showed the nipple in court today. They let me go.

Seriously though, justice and common sense prevailed today. Will add some details later.

[jstubbs]

Awesome! I am excited to hear more details. It’s always a great day when justice prevails.

Stupid that you had to go through a whole court date and all that to prove innocence, however.

[hayseed]

awesome! I am excited to hear more details. It’s always a great day when justice prevails.

Stupid that you had to go through a whole court date and all that to prove innocence, however.

x 2

[32-40win]

Probably worth watching as things have changed over the last year. You are guilty until you may possibly get a chance to prove yourself innocent, and will have to pay for the privelege to start with;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXHF_fULvwA&t=1s

[Twisted Canuck]

Probably worth watching as things have changed over the last year. You are guilty until you may possibly get a chance to prove yourself innocent, and will have to pay for the privelege to start with;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXHF_fULvwA&t=1s

If I'm not mistaken, that has been dropped by the province.

[Who Da Fisherman]

Probably worth watching as things have changed over the last year. You are guilty until you may possibly get a chance to prove yourself innocent, and will have to pay for the privelege to start with;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXHF_fULvwA&t=1s

Thought they dropped going ahead with that?
WDF

[RandyBoBandy]

^ Took the advice and showed the nipple in court today. They let me go.

Seriously though, justice and common sense prevailed today. Will add some details later.

:sHa_shakeshout:

[pintailslammer]

I just had a ticket throw out because the signature of the officer wasn't readable by the judge

Maybe the same on your ticket

Good luck

Pin

[Cement Bench]

your explanation on the original post was thorough and detailed and great
you should win on the evidence if yiu introduced that document

it seemed to explain everything needed

[fishnguy]

For those bored to death, here are some detailed details, lol. A weekend read…

First of all, the hearing was scheduled for 9:30 in room number 3. I quickly found out that the room was locked and there was no one on the entire floor, lol. Without a notice or any indication of such, it was moved to another room on the second floor.

There were a few dozens of people, including a number of officers, I’d say about 10 or so. Note that we probably have as many in the entire town (don’t quote me on the exact number, but I very much doubt it is many more than that). I found out that I am probably in the right spot because everyone seemed to be there for traffic act violations. Everyone was standing outside of the courtroom, taking turns talking to the Crown (prosecutor). Then, another guy came and went right through the courtroom door. Everyone followed, myself and police officers including. It was kind of really weird because it seemed like no one even tried to go in before. I don’t know what happened earlier because I was probably one of the last people to arrive on-time (there were a few that showed up way later) with literally a few minutes before 9:30. So we all went inside the court room and took seats. Inside were a couple of assistants (or whatever they are called) who looked at us kind of lost and quickly announced that the court was adjourned for half an hour, lol. Everyone went outside again. It was around 9:45 now. Note that I thought I would be out of there before lunch, silly me.

When I was exiting the courtroom, I stumbled upon the Crown who asked me if I was there for a traffic act violation and after hearing my confirmation asked if I wanted to talk to him prior to trial. I said sure. He pulled out my file, indicated speeding in the construction zone and said that he sees there was no reduction was done by the officer at the scene. He then right away (I didn’t say a word up to that point) said he can drop it right now, pending approval from the judge, to 60 km/h in a 50-zone, down from 79, and that would reduce the fine from $240 (or whatever it was) to about $120; and demerit points from 3 to 2. I said no thanks, to which he replied that he doesn’t see many circumstances where the judge can go lower than that (you bet I thought; it would be nuts if a guilty were to get such a reduction or more). It seemed to me that he didn’t understand I was actually aiming for a complete withdrawal of the ticket.

The Crown then stated that my trial will probably happen only in the afternoon, to which I replied something probably slightly inappropriate like “Are you for real?” or something like that, lol. I explained that I didn’t plan on taking the whole day off and had some important commitments later on. He said he understood and he wasn’t trying to hardball me, but that was the reality of the situation with about 30 files in his case scheduled for the day. I said I sure understand but that definitely sucks. The guy was very nice, by the way.

I called my wife and told her about what the guy told me and asked what she thought I should do. She said that her actions would probably be different from mine and she would probably take the offer. I said I would think about it. I really wasn’t planning to be stuck there for the better part of the day and there were some important things on my schedule, so I can’t say I wasn’t considering the guy’s offer. Yet, the back of my head and my.. pride and stubbornness, maybe? wouldn’t let me commit to that.

To run a little ahead, I was pretty much convinced I cannot lose this case and they cannot win. I was convinced to the point that, against the advice of a couple of guys here, I didn’t even bother getting the evidence they have against me because I was confident there is nothing there that would help me out and I may just overthink and make things more complicated. I had my defence laid out months ago.

Anyway, some time later, everyone went back to the courtroom. Before that, I quickly ran to the gas station to get some water because I came completely unprepared. Once the judge entered the room, the proceedings began by calling the people who pleaded guilty and got a reduction in fine and/or violation.

I will not go into details here, but it went on something like the Crown saying “I now call such and such who changed their plea to guilty and I want to reduce this and that” and the judge asking the person if they changed their plea, if they understood they can still have their trial because that is why we were there (no doubt) and the consequences and blah blah blah. A lot of wasted time, imo. I will come to that point later.

So after clearing a few people and letting them go, the court was adjourned for about 20-30 minutes. Before that the judge mentioned those who didn’t have a chance to review the evidence against them could do so now by approaching the Crown. At this point I decided to take a look. However, someone ran ahead of me, then I let a young lady go ahead, then the Crown offered someone else come in ahead of me because he already spoke to me, regardless of the fact that those people just showed up. Long story short, I didn’t get a chance to have a look, lol, before we had to head back to court. Can’t say I cared much, but still. Back in the courtroom, we went through the same exercise, where a few more people were cleared with reduced fines and some with multiple tickets had one or two dropped entirely. Another break.

There were a couple of guys (I got a hunch were somehow connected, but I didn’t pay enough attention) who came but the court was not expecting them due some clerical error and the Crown didn’t have their files and was asking for an adjournment (setting another date for their trials). They both pleaded not guilty and opposed the adjournment. No kidding, I would too. But it seemed they each had three tickets to “fight” and my understanding was the offences were serious. That was the reason for the break, so they could try and come to some resolution with the prosecutor. Neither of them did, but I managed to get a look at the evidence in my case, after a couple more people squeezed in before me, one of which just showed up, lol. It was 11:45 now and I was sure we were going to head for a lunch break. To my surprise there wasn’t a lunch break (thankfully).

So I looked at the file they had “against” me. The officer’s notes were pretty lame: he was travelling in that direction on such highway, saw a vehicle going very fast and estimated the speed to be 80 km/h in a 50 zone, confirmed with the radar and it was 79; hit the lights and siren and turned around, but the vehicle didn’t stop, eventually pulled over and blah. There was also a dvd with the video from his vehicle. I asked to take a look and the prosecutor asked one of the officers with his service laptop to run it for me. On the video, you could see the PO heading eastbound on the highway, one set of lights (the bright LED kind) coming in the opposite direction, then another vehicle (regular headlights and fog lights on). The officer with the laptop said to me “OK, this is probably your vehicle. Is it some kind of service vehicle, maybe a welding truck?” I said “Exactly!” He asked “It is?” I laughed and said “No”. So on the video, the PO’s vehicle turned the lights on, made a u-turn and started following with no one in sight for a couple of minutes. I said they could shut it down and I didn’t really need to see anything further. The guy with laptop seemed surprised and confirmed that I was sure and I expressed my gratitude for letting me use his laptop to see it. Nice guy too. Everyone was nice, fyi. The Crown asked if I changed my mind after reviewing the evidence (including the video where no one could say what the vehicle was), to which I replied that I did not (I was more confident than ever now).

We went back to the courtroom, probably just after 12. The two guys, even though they opposed it strongly, were given adjournments. I mean I can understand the judge, there was some mistake that was not under control of the court and the judge said it never happened in her courtroom before and she was assured it never will again and, again, my understanding was their offences were more serious than a seatbelt or a speeding ticket, but I can’t talk out of my ass because, like I said, I wasn’t paying enough attention. I sure as heck can understand the guys though - they both lost a better half of the day worth of work.

After these two guys were let go, we went back to what went on before up to this point. Just the offences were a little more serious and couple of people who also got a chance to review their cases and changed their pleas as a result. The more serious cases included a guy driving with a suspended license (due to running over the limit with the demerit points) - he got a reduced fine of $600; a guy, a delivery driver, running a stop sign - not sure what was the reduction in his case, but I know there was, fined $400 or something like that. Then there was a case with a woman asking for an adjournment because she couldn’t obtain the necessary documents proving here innocence. This one was weird because the case dragged on for nearly two years now and she still couldn’t obtain the documents. My understanding was she was driving someone else’s vehicle that wasn’t insured. She was claiming that the vehicle was insured, she didn’t have a slip, and the owner refuses to show up in court, while the insurance company refused to provide her with any info because she has nothing to do with it. To my surprise, the judge said they must and if they refuse, she should subpoena them so that their representative would have to appear in court. Regardless, the defendant provided some order for the owner of the vehicle to appear in court (the order was dated two days prior). I am not the one to judge, but sounded like a bunch of baloney (there were other factors for me to draw this conclusion, but I am not going to go into it here). Long story short she got another adjournment, the last one, according to the judge, regardless of what happens the next time. There was another young woman asking for adjournment because her lawyer didn’t show up for the n-th time. Also baloney, but I am not the judging type and don’t know the circumstances and whatnot. She got her adjournment as well after more deliberation (the Crown objected but that didn’t help); also the last one and the judge suggested to her to prepare to go jail after the next hearing, saying that it won’t necessarily be the result, but to be ready for it in case this is the resolution. Not sure why and what the offence is (it is a traffic court); best guess is no money to pay the fine -> 14 days in jail. Guilty or not, whatever it is, it isn’t easy for those people without a doubt (in my mind); life happens and sometimes a hard one.

Anyway, at last, everyone was let go but me and another guy. In other words, everyone who showed up received a reduction to their fine and/or offence and those looking for an adjournment got one too (except for the guys who didn’t want it and whom the court wasn’t ready for). Me and the other guy were the only ones who actually came to have a trial and really plead not guilty. Lol. There was a short calling and “sentencing” or whatever of people who didn’t show up, probably about 7-10 individuals. Then there was another break, around 1:40 or so and the trial, finally.

My trial began around 2 or just after. The judge asked if I understood how the procedure works and if I needed further explanation. I said not really and that the Crown had briefly explained to me what was going to happen. She said that if at any point I did not understand what was happening or if I needed some clarification, I could always raise my hand and ask. Kind of funny, but I guess that is how things work? She was actually very nice and more than helpful to everyone involved. From my understanding the prosecutor wasn’t the most experienced guy out there either (likely not long out of school). Doubt there are many people with solid experience and not retirement age who would be willing to do this for living for any extensive period of time.

Anyway, the Peace Officer was called to the stand, asked questions about his experience, the training in estimating vehicle speed, radar operation, etc. Then asked about the events of the eventing. The funny part was he was asked if he was on duty on March something and answered yes and they went on. A few minutes later, when I got a chance, I informed the Crown that the date was actually January 9, lol. He thanked me and wanted to almost start over asking the guy if he was on duty on January 9. Thankfully, the judge said to proceed from where he left off.

Then came the time to show the video and the PO was giving commentary on what was happening. I already briefly explained what was happening in the video, so I will not repeat. Over three minutes in, when I was pulled over in the footage, the Crown and then the judge asked me if I wanted to go on and if I thought there was anything relevant in there that I could use in my defence. I said no (thinking thank god because there was 10 or more minutes remaining). Then the judge asked me if I objected to the video being submitted as evidence; I said I didn’t really care, it could be submitted. I was asked this same thing about every document, including radar certification, officer’s diploma or whatever and other papers, the engineer’s order for the speed limit to be changed from 80 to 50, etc. I didn’t care either way about any of it. Frankly, I thought it was all a waste of time, but I guess this how things work? The funny thing was about the engineer’s order (don’t remember if that is what it was actually called). The judge, after studying the document, indicated that it appears it had expired back in 2020, lol. They had a couple of minutes of discussion with the Crown, him trying to explain why it wasn’t and her saying that it does, in fact, appear to be the case. Finally, she said if I decided to challenge that, he would have to defend his position. She was definitely set on the fact that the paper was expired (which really meant the 50 km/h sign was not valid and people could drive 80 km/h, which is the regular speed limit, even though it has never been since the new bridge opened for traffic).

Then the prosecutor asked the officer how he identified my vehicle when he pulled me over. That was a huge blunder (I guess he couldn’t know ahead of time). The reply he received was that the vehicle had the bright blue LED lights. That was the first vehicle in the video, as I mentioned earlier. That was pretty much over at this point (unfortunately only my head though, lol). When he was done with his cross examination/interview/whatever the hell it is called, I was to step in and ask questions. I right away asked if this was correct that he identified the vehicle by the bright LED lights. The PO explained it again. At that point I said “Well, my vehicle doesn’t have either LED lights nor are they blue”. While I was hoping for this to be over at this point because that was the mike drop kind of moment, really, but I guess this is not how things work. The judge said something like I should’t share my evidence or something like that and that I could talk about it when I take the stand if I choose to call myself as a witness. Damn… Really? Ok.

So I called myself to the stand, lol. Another funny moment was that I was imagining that I would take the stand and be like one of those people in the movies with an amazing and clear speech and whatnot. When I cross examined the cop, he was supposed to go like “You can’t handle the truth!” Lolol. None of that happened, of course. When I took the stand and took out my notes, over three pages worth, the judge asked what I was going to do with that. I told her that I prepared the speech I was going to read. She almost did a facepalm and asked if showed it to the Crown prior. I said I didn’t. She did do a facepalm and said if I were to read that, I was supposed to provide it to the Crown prior. Damn… well, I guess I can do without. Most of it was written the day of the incident and then I corrected some errors, grammar wise, and added some final comments the evening before the trial. She called for another adjournment and said we need to work it out with the Crown. I said I didn’t have to use it, but it was too late, lol.

The Crown asked if he could read it and I gave him the papers. He read them and said if I were to introduce these notes and read directly from them, he would ask me this and that and whatever. He said I could use them as a little reminder or a refresher, but I could not read them entirely because whatever. He said that my words would also have more weight if I was just speaking rather than reading. I really didn’t care because there was no way the ticket would stand. So the trial resumed and I talked about what was in the notes. The dream of clear and beautiful speech was dead. I was nervous and mumbled and probably sounded like an idiot, lol. Oh well. At one point the judge asked me what was the relevance of something I was saying and I said that there was no way the PO could be sure that the vehicle he clocked was mine. She said yes, that was the point. The Crown asked me a few (irrelevant) questions, one of which was if I was fixated at my speedometer all the time when driving that evening. I said of course not, but I was checking it regularly. He asked if it was possible that I didn’t notice that I sped up before the 80 sign, ie still in the 50 zone. I said no because I was checking my speedometer regularly. He asked something like (not the exact words but the idea was this) how I could be certain if I wasn’t fixating on it and if I was then I wouldn’t be able to see where I was going or something like that. I said that we all have to pass the test when we get our driver’s licenses and if we were to be fixated on the speedometer or going too fast, we wouldn’t get the driver’s licenses.

Anyway, he then made his closing statements and I only said that the vehicle the PO clocked could have been far ahead, turn at the previous intersection, right left, or go elsewhere. We then rested, lol. Crazy stuff, really, if you think about it. All for a dumb ticket worth $240 or a reduced $120.

The judge started talking making her decision. She went on and on. Funny enough, she said that higher court indicated that the cops (or Crown) don’t have to be providing calibration papers anymore. But because in this case the Crown provided such papers they had to provide something else (I really have no idea because I didn’t understand most of the technical terms she mentioned), which wasn’t there, so there was a doubt, in accordance with the paperwork provided, that the vehicle the PO clocked was speeding in the first place. She then stated that because the officer was fairly new, and that she meant no disrespect, but the court cannot really absolutely rely on his speed estimating skills, even though he passed all the tests and whatever during his training. So there really was a doubt that the vehicle was speeding. I thought lol, but I guess this is how things work? Of course the speech was much longer and way more sophisticated than my cliff notes here. She then moved on to the part where I stated that it would be too dangerous to drive faster than the speed limit due to weather and the road conditions. She kind of asked herself if there is a doubt and answered kind of “meh, maybe”, probably not really though. At last, she got to the part if there was any doubt that the vehicle that was clocked was the same that was pulled over. The reasoning couldn’t be anymore clear and the answer was of course there was and lots. I was acquitted and free to go. Damn… I said thanks to the Crown, he returned the same. I then went to the Peace Officer, shook his hand and said no hard feelings, kind of laughing (in a nice way, obviously). He laughed, said something while laughing, which I didn’t quite get (something like it is what it is) and I left. The time was 3:25. I had to pick up my daughter from school at 3:25, but the wife already took a couple of hours off work to do so because I was still busy in court.

So… The whole thing, as far as the trial went, seemed to be like a bad lesson in law school. If they let me testify for 3-5 minutes in the very beginning, it would probably be over then. Even without the blunder of “blue LED lights”. There was absolutely no need to go on for an hour and twenty minutes. I thought that was ridiculous. Also, the guy absolutely confused himself with the LED lights. The vehicle he clocked was the second one, the one with the fog lights and it did have some far resemblance to a 4Runner (which I drive) in that very fuzzy video. I don’t use fog lights though, ever; this is how I knew it wasn’t me when I reviewed it. But it certainly made things easier for me when he mentioned the LED thing.

Overall, everyone who showed up got a reduction. Like a participation ribbon, I guess. The system sure needs a fix and probably why I posted the whole thing rather than just my trial. I do understand that running a trial for every 100-dollar ticket isn’t feasible (and is insane). On the other hand, there is no need for the judge to be there after these talks with the prosecutor and a drop in fine. I am sure thousands of dollars (probably over well over $10-20K including wages, building, utilities, etc) were spent to collect likely way under $2,000 in (reduced) fines. What’s the point? My trial didn’t have to take place either if the Crown asked me some questions and admitted there was no case after reviewing the fuzzy video, when another cop called the speeding vehicle a welding truck.

Stripping people’s rights to defend themselves and challenge the police isn’t a fix, clearly. What is then? I am not sure, but there are definitely things to think about. Like the, what seemed to be, automatic reductions of fines. If this is the way things are done, why do these people need to see a judge who would talk to them for 5-10 minutes each? Why did my clearcut trial had to go on for almost an hour and a half? Might as well introduce a jury and stretch it to a couple of days with minimum mandatory deliberating of 24 hours. Of the nearly a dozen of officers who were present, only the Peace Officer who pulled me over and the next one (for the next guy) had to testify; all others just wasted their half a day or more just sitting there doing nothing just because a bunch of people showed up to get a reduction in their fines. I understand that the solution isn’t simple but there has to be one. I have seen inefficiencies in government, but not sure if I saw anything quite like this. This is not really a rant to end this overly long post and I am not ****ed off (though I, perhaps, should be?), just a description of the reality that requires some significant adjustments. Maybe there should be a group of competent and level-headed people, regular citizens, who, with the help of experts in various fields, depending on the topic at hand, can brainstorm the possible solutions and fixes that can be proposed to the government and all Albertans for a review and maybe this is the way to fix the system. Not only this particular inefficiency that I described above, but work through issues in all departments and propose possible solutions.

Ok, now I am done, I think. I warned you you’d have to be bored to death to get to this point :)

[Albertacoyotecaller]

That PO for the town of PR was hired to generate money for the town and has he ever. I am sure he has helped the bottom line of the annual debt.

Funny thing about getting tickets on the provincial highway that runs through town is this. The town gets lots of complaints about the condition of the provincial highway and its maintenance. The defer to the contractor hired by the province and tell the towns citizens that it has nothing to do with them as the roadway is the provinces responsibility. Then they hire a PO and all of a sudden the main focus of the PO is patrolling the provincial road that isn’t the town’s responsibility. He has generated tons of cash for the town and frustrated lots of drivers. All the while other items in town are ignored that he could be attending to.

Weird how things work in PR.

[elkhunter11]

I am glad to hear that all that this cost you was the time to go to court, to defend yourself against the false accusation. What really surprises me, is that there weren't people telling you to just pay the ticket, because you ,must be guilty if you were issued a ticket.

[58thecat]

Good on you for staying the course. When you know you are right it’s worth the hassles.

[32-40win]

Glad you got a chance to sort it out. Also glad you didn't have to put up with the krap in Runkle's vid. Maybe Who da Fisherman is right, and they delayed implementation on that krap. I had to go to court once in PR, sat thru 3-4 cases, one was a fellow with an impaired, second or third time, couldn't understand the charges, took a break with his lawyer to explain them to him, came back after another case, lawyer said he still couldn't understand charges, judge tossed the case. Saw the same guy outside on the street hour or so later, spoke perfect English, not at all like he made out in court.

[Savage Bacon]

There's guilty people that are proven innocent, and innocent people that are proven guilty, all the time. You are at the mercy of the system.

Good job sticking with it. It's a gamble even if you didn't do the crime. You could have ended up with the full fine, plus lost wages for a whole day, plus your wife's time to pick the kid up.



Sent from my SM-G970W using Tapatalk

[rjlester]

I want to thank you for posting such a detailed recant of your day in court. I learned a lot from what happened to you that day, and I'm glad they dropped the charges for you!

Also, I grew up in Peace River, we left in 1987 and I've only been back a handful of times since, kind of cool how so much of it has not changed. I know every inch of that town as we used to ride our bikes everywhere. I would like to take a road trip up there this summer, and see the new bridge and everything else.

Again, thanks for telling your story, very well written.

[barbless]

I say fight it. Had almost the same going to Sundre. Asked to see the reading on the radar and he said his partner had already erased it. Went to court and judge through it out cause of the not being able to show me the speed. Had wife and son in truck but they cannot be a witness.

[Grizzly Adams1]

Good on you for staying the course. When you know you are right it’s worth the hassles.

I've always found a day spent in court can be very informative and entertaining, some surprisingly weird stuff comes through there. :lol:

Grizz

[Savage Bacon]

I've always found a day spent in court can be very informative and entertaining, some surprisingly weird stuff comes through there. [emoji38]



GrizzThat is an entertaining day for sure! I haven't been to court in a long time, but it was always interesting to see who rolls through there. Not saying I wasn't participating in the entertainment.

Then in the evening, a couple hours cruising around on city transit to top off the day!

Sent from my SM-G970W using Tapatalk

[fishnguy]

That PO for the town of PR was hired to generate money for the town and has he ever. I am sure he has helped the bottom line of the annual debt.
My understanding is that there are 3 (!) of them. All were in the courtroom that morning. The officers that had to actually stay and testify (ie the two not guilty pleas) were two of the three.

What really surprises me, is that there weren't people telling you to just pay the ticket, because you must be guilty if you were issued a ticket.
I believe that that was the assumption of the Crown and it did seem to me, like I mentioned in my previous post, that he didn’t understand after our first meeting that I am actually aiming for a trial and a complete acquittal.

It's a gamble even if you didn't do the crime. You could have ended up with the full fine, plus lost wages for a whole day, plus your wife's time to pick the kid up.
For sure. Hence, I was contemplating (not really, but it was at the back of my head) taking the reduced fine the Crown had offered. Weird how things work. Such was my other experience a couple of decades ago that I believe I mentioned in my very first post in this thread: lost a full day worth of work, paid a full fine and the “court fee” (if recall correctly an extra $20).

I want to thank you for posting such a detailed recant of your day in court. I learned a lot from what happened to you that day, and I'm glad they dropped the charges for you!

Also, I grew up in Peace River, we left in 1987 and I've only been back a handful of times since, kind of cool how so much of it has not changed. I know every inch of that town as we used to ride our bikes everywhere. I would like to take a road trip up there this summer, and see the new bridge and everything else.

Again, thanks for telling your story, very well written.
If it is the bridges you want to see, I would suggest taking that road trip next summer. The renovation of the old bridge is supposed to be completed this fall, unless I am mistaken. The old one will be heading eastbound and the new one west. Take a walk across the river under the new bridge (the pedestrian crossing is under the new bridge). It is quite amazing and you can really appreciate how mighty that river really is. I was quite astonished to see it that way when I walked there the first time and, perhaps, every time since.

I've always found a day spent in court can be very informative and entertaining, some surprisingly weird stuff comes through there. :lol:
I would think that the information I really got was that the absolute majority of “the show” is quite a waste of my tax dollars, lol. Maybe that is because I didn’t get to be present at an actual trial except my own.

I do wonder how the second guy’s trial went though. He was issued a ticket for tinted windows. He actually brought a side window with him as evidence, lol. From his description to me (we had a very brief conversation) the PO who pulled him over acted like a donkey, but I wasn’t there when that happened and didn't get to hear the PO’s story. I feel that one could be a little entertaining.

[Grizzly Adams1]

I would think that the information I really got was that the absolute majority of “the show” is quite a waste of my tax dollars, lol. Maybe that is because I didn’t get to be present at an actual trial except my own.

A basic tenet of our legal system is the right to dispute an accusation in court. It might seem trivial, but that's what Magna Carta was all about and what forced the Provincial government to drop short circuiting the procedure.

Grizz